TexasCHLforum.com

Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?

I have been a LEO and I would have to answer answer yes.

Go back and look at the video of Jose Guerena (the former Marine that was shot) all the officers are crowded in the door, one falls back then goes back up so he can fire over the heads of other officers. It appears no one even thought of taking cover, it was like solders taking an objective.

Go back and look at the picture published in the paper of Elian Gonzalez in the closet looking at the SWAT officer. I believe if a federal officer knocked on the door and identified himself, they would have given up the boy.

They should be used for high risk situations only.

To paraphrase an old saying... "Once you have that fancy new hammer, all your problems start to look like nails."

sjfcontrol wrote:To paraphrase an old saying... "Once you have that fancy new hammer, all your problems start to look like nails."

Exactly

sjfcontrol wrote:To paraphrase an old saying... "Once you have that fancy new hammer, all your problems start to look like nails."

How about "An unused weapon is a useless weapon"?

In the private sector, a penny saved is a penny earned.

In the public sector, a penny saved is an excuse to cut your budget next year.

bayouhazard wrote:In the private sector, a penny saved is a penny earned.

In the public sector, a penny saved is an excuse to cut your budget next year.

That can sometimes be true in the private sector as well. The oddest "load" I ever hauled as a truck driver was a single envelope that contained copies of my BOL.

I was down in the Miami area after having delivered a load when I got dispatched to deadhead to Jacksonville, FL for a new run going to Tacoma, WA. I had barely bumped the dock at the shipper when they had me "loaded" and ready to roll. When I got to Tacoma, I delivered there and was dispatched to take the load back. When I got back to the original shipper and found out all I carried was a manila envelope with my BOLs in it, they said that they had to use up their transport budget or it would get cut for next year.

VoiceofReason wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:To paraphrase an old saying... "Once you have that fancy new hammer, all your problems start to look like nails."

How about "An unused weapon is a useless weapon"?

How about "An unused weapon is just a sidewalk!"

sjfcontrol wrote:How about "An unused weapon is just a sidewalk!"

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm a supporter of the police in general; but only to a certain point.
They have a dangerous job; I'm taking nothing away from that aspect.
And there are units that do their job with dignity and professionalism; but a few bad apples will ruin an entire barrel if not kept in check. So goes one; so goes them all.

"Power corrupts and absolute power is really kind of neat."

Some Militarized police units or departments apparently have little or no "effective" civilian oversight.
Civilian oversight boards can be a rubber stamp for the IA units or the Chief of Police and bureaucratic city governments.

How many times do you see where the decision was "the actions of the police officers was deemed justified."
Sometimes that's correct and sometimes it isn't.
Even when its "not deemed justified"; the police officer is as likely to get a light punishment, if any, - as opposed to us civilians who would be doing felony time for the same actions. (Refer to Daniel Harless, Ohio PD officer).

What happens when the we fail to police the Police, especially those in highly armored military units?

You end up with a absolute power structure that can be virtually impervious to scrutiny or objection.
It takes on a miserable life of its own and the power is generated inside and insulated outside;
with no short to ground circuit, so to speak.

Take a look at the NYPD "stop-and-frisk" program.
Its so big and out of control (lacking respect for the Constitution) and supported by the units themselves and their administrations that no one will stand up to it.
Supporters may fear that if they change their minds in a public outcry, they'll be exposed as idiots for supporting it in the first place or maliciously targeted by people from within the command structure.

There is no one who can pull the plug when it gets dangerous for innocent civilians to just be at home.
ANY resistance whatsoever, will get you shot, even if you're exactly correct in your assertions of liberty, safety and security.
And you have little hope of the courts seeing it your way; dead or alive.
The police are given wide latitude and are rarely held accountable.
You, on the other hand, are bankrupt and destitute, if you're alive at all.


While the genesis of the militarized police groups was likely initially well-intentioned (dealing with highly dangerous, known killers, etc), they seem to be available for the more mundane tasks or objectives. But they don't scale back their unit tactics to fit the situation parameters.

With that overload, lots of people are deemed to be highly dangerous by default and "you really are a criminal, we just haven't caught you yet" mindset evolves. When that happens, everything these units do is self-justified to be good.

What happens to children who grow up without boundaries, without discipline or moral instructions on the consequences for their actions?
They become out of control, obnoxious demons that take many times the effort to now control than it would have taken to ensure they didn't develop this way in the first place. And, worse, they also leave a trail of destruction in their path that someone has to clean up.

Militarized police units are subject to the same effect if not watched, questioned, scrutinized and challenged at every turn by effective civilian oversight.
A board with the power to excise improper individuals, procedures and mindsets that are not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and the "serve and protect" vision statements so many police departments seem to trumpet.

We may already be too far down the wrong path.

Sorry, I don't write much; but police units that operate outside the boundaries of common sense and make such egregious errors in planning, management and common sense, just cry out for a comment.

LabRat

Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.

I actually posted this article in another thread, two days before this thread was started: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=835882#p835882" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, I absolutely do not have a problem with police having an AR15 AND a shotgun AND a big ol' night stick AND pistols and suppressors and big scary knives and something with a rock & roll setting, and anything else you need in order to be an effective cop. CAVEAT: I want access to all of those things too without getting hassled by The Man to have them. It's my 2nd Amendment right. "ARMS," of which the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed, is inclusive of, but not limited to, guns. Any kind of gun. Any kind of knife. Any kind of bat, sap, club, kubotan, nunchucks, whatever.

Here's what I do have a problem with: The Department of Education using a SWAT team, for which they have no justifiable purpose, to carry out a no-knock warrant on a middle aged woman to collect a delinquent college loan. You can never convince me that DOE needs a SWAT team. Please.

Why does Fish & Wildlife need SWAT? To raid a guitar factory, for allegedly illegal wood products? Really? Couldn't they have just send over a couple of agents with a warrant, asking to see the wood? It's not like Gibson was trying to hide anything. They thought they were acting within the law, and that they had nothing to hide. Please.

Has any police officer ever been indicted for murder when executing a no-knock-kick-down-the-door warrant on the WRONG address caused a homeowner to defend themselves with deadly force, leading to the homeowner being shot dead by police? If not, why not? Is the innocent homeowner's life worth less than that of the cop who murdered him?

I WANT LEOs to be well equipped. A) I just don't want them to have stuff I can't have; and B) I think the increasing militarization of policing defeats the purpose of community policing, which I believe to be far more effective in dealing with the general public for 99.99% of all LEO interactions. What did cops do to serve warrants before everybody and their uncle got a SWAT team? Go back to doing that. It was better. Nowadays, people see black up-armored tactical vehicles bearing a dozen heavily armed paramilitary troops descend on their neighborhoods to snatch some skinny dude for selling crack, and they don't see Officer Friendly, there to improve their neighborhood. No. What they see is an invading army of people who smash doors and break stuff and then leave.

Not good community relations, if you ask me. And police cannot be effective if communities won't trust them and work with them. SWAT is a deterrent to those kinds of relations, and it ought to be used as absolutely sparingly as possible.

And there doesn't need to be a SWAT team for every federal initialed agency in competition with every other federal agency for the biggest budget and the shiniest toys. The DOE? Really?

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.

I actually posted this article in another thread, two days before this thread was started: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=835882#p835882" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, I absolutely do not have a problem with police having an AR15 AND a shotgun AND a big ol' night stick AND pistols and suppressors and big scary knives and something with a rock & roll setting, and anything else you need in order to be an effective cop. CAVEAT: I want access to all of those things too without getting hassled by The Man to have them. It's my 2nd Amendment right. "ARMS," of which the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed, is inclusive of, but not limited to, guns. Any kind of gun. Any kind of knife. Any kind of bat, sap, club, kubotan, nunchucks, whatever.

Here's what I do have a problem with: The Department of Education using a SWAT team, for which they have no justifiable purpose, to carry out a no-knock warrant on a middle aged woman to collect a delinquent college loan. You can never convince me that DOE needs a SWAT team. Please.

Why does Fish & Wildlife need SWAT? To raid a guitar factory, for allegedly illegal wood products? Really? Couldn't they have just send over a couple of agents with a warrant, asking to see the wood? It's not like Gibson was trying to hide anything. They thought they were acting within the law, and that they had nothing to hide. Please.

Has any police officer ever been indicted for murder when executing a no-knock-kick-down-the-door warrant on the WRONG address caused a homeowner to defend themselves with deadly force, leading to the homeowner being shot dead by police? If not, why not? Is the innocent homeowner's life worth less than that of the cop who murdered him?

I WANT LEOs to be well equipped. A) I just don't want them to have stuff I can't have; and B) I think the increasing militarization of policing defeats the purpose of community policing, which I believe to be far more effective in dealing with the general public for 99.99% of all LEO interactions. What did cops do to serve warrants before everybody and their uncle got a SWAT team? Go back to doing that. It was better. Nowadays, people see black up-armored tactical vehicles bearing a dozen heavily armed paramilitary troops descend on their neighborhoods to snatch some skinny dude for selling crack, and they don't see Officer Friendly, there to improve their neighborhood. No. What they see is an invading army of people who smash doors and break stuff and then leave.

Not good community relations, if you ask me. And police cannot be effective if communities won't trust them and work with them. SWAT is a deterrent to those kinds of relations, and it ought to be used as absolutely sparingly as possible.

And there doesn't need to be a SWAT team for every federal initialed agency in competition with every other federal agency for the biggest budget and the shiniest toys. The DOE? Really?

Obviously that was worth repeating.

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.

Am I allowed to take this as tongue in cheek? Because if you were serious when you wrote this, it's the worst strawman argument I've seen in a long time.

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.

While I can't say I have seen a LEO carrying a bayonet, I have seen bayonets in a police armory, all neatly racked on the wall above the ARs. And I have no problem with the police having ARs, as others have said, as long as I get to own them too.

Has anyone ever wondered why we don't see any agencies arming themselves with AKs?